Between March 27 and April 4, involved with the media and with the investigation--if asked a question from a reporter, went to the investigators and asked.
His false statement on Kim Roberts 911 call is such an instance--he just didn't know.
[His official story is that he never saw the Roberts statement in March.]
DPD, not the Durham DA, was in charge of the investigation.
Ekstrand meeting March 28: claims that he never said that he would only hear guilty pleas, just tells Ekstrand to go to the police.
[Ekstrand has a very very different recollection of this conversation.]
Does speak with media--wanted to let the public know that the case was a case that was being looked at very carefully by the "elected district attorney." Wanted people to come forward.
"One of the things that struck us about this case as very different than any other Duke party" was that the party had ended when the police arrived.
"Very unusual" that residents of the house not there. His belief was that people were told to "evacuate the house immediately." Hoping that some of the people who were at the party who didn't commit the rape would come forward to tell them what they knew--perhaps to clear their names. Had no reason to suspect that most people at the party had any involvement with what happened.
[If true, then how, possibly, could all 46 of them have been subject to an NTO, which presumed some involvement.]
Says that he didn't think through his statements "as much as I should have"--wasn't intending to make improper statements. But concedes that they violated the Rules of Professional Conduct.
At that point, had no suspects and no one had been identified, therefore wasn't concerned with harming trial. Didn't see any of these broadcasts--was concentrating on a political campaign.
"Maybe if I had seen some of the clips, I would have shut up sooner." But his intention was to make someone feel a sense of duty to come forward.
Statements about alleged racial motives: made because of nature of allegation, however. "Almost immediately two outcries from the community." People were saying that someone needed to be put in jail; on other side, had sentiment of argument that strippers can't be raped.
Concedes that his statement about Durham's image in the eyes of the world "crossed the line." Excuse: he never got to see the broadcasts, so didn't know their effects.
"Fervent desire" was to keep lacrosse case from affecting Durham politics or from being affected by politics.
"Aiders and abettors" comment came in response to a reporter, he wasn't the one who initiated this comment. Just gave "textbook definition" that took 5-6 minutes, reporter quoted selectively.
"Stonewall of silence" comment was referring just to people who would be arrested.
Condom analogy made just because he was responding to a hypothetical question, but in any case unprotected sex not likely on these circumstances. Victims are not always sure that condoms were used.
Had never been involved with a case which dealt with national media attention.
98 percent of his contacts with media came between March 27 and April 3--tried to limit his comments to the public record, but sometimes got "confused" about what was in public record or got "carried away."
Media attention would have been tremendous anyway, but "certainly possible" that if he hadn't spoken out, the media might not have paid less attention. But his only intention was to get the case resolved quickly.
Acknowledges that the panel will find him guilty on the media statements front.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
57 comments:
As I said in another post...professional liar...why would the Bar waste any more time listening to him? Unless they are getting more lies from him to use against him?
Really, he should have pled insanity.
He is already lying here, and as I expected he will use the 'bad memory' defense, but don't think it will work w/this panel.
THis could be a cross examination for the record books.
Another lie.
The party ended before the police arrived.
"elected District attoreny"...??? Wasn't he appointed?
I wish Brad Bannon would be allowed to cross-examine him
JLS says...,
Yep, lie after lie after lie after lie.
If he said to the Durham attorney that the police would like to talk to them, why didn't he call that person on the phone?
And HE WAS NOT THE ELECTED DA OF DURHAM CO. AT THE TIME.
He also appears to be a compuslive liar, yes, he was appointed never elected. What a buffoon.
He is weakening! Can't wait for the cross!!!
Getting a long look on his face!
They are trying to go to intent. He did not intend to violate the rules.
So, its okay to pollute the jury pool and rile the community up into a frenzy as long as you do it before you indict anyone. Well, okay then.
It actually is worse, because by raising the stakes and polluting the jury pool even before you have arrested anyone hugely diminishes their chance for a fair trial, people are already out for blood.
I don't use this word very often because it's usually bandied about as a sophmoric insult. But I really believe he is just "stupid" and got himself in way over his head and his arrogance would not let him admit it to himself or anyone else.
I don't know if he's evil or not, but I have no doubt that he is not very bright. His inability to get a job out of law school supports this as well.
Oh my gosh.
"If he had the clips"...what difference does that make?
He knows what he said, what does he need to watch the interviews for? What kind of defense is that?
He is worse than I thought he would be. Completely illogical.
He's trying to deflect total blame by admitting partial blame.
Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire defense!
Hear those sirens? They're coming for Nifong!
JLS says...,
It is hard to believe he wanted to clear the innocent since he threatened to charge them.
And what a whopper this is that he did not want the case to affect politics in Durham.
11:13
I agree, a smarter 'evil' person would neve have made the blatant mistakes he made, never have straight out lied to the judge, he would have been more crafty.
Nifong was never qualified to be DA, he is the worst sort of mediocre gov. worker.
Stupidity and arrogance are always a deadly combination.
The cross will be BRUTAL ... I wish the State could bring in Ekstrand as a rebuttal witness to say he is lying about what was said at their meeting...
BDay
It's all someone else's fault, isn't it?
Didn't want to affect politics???
On cross: please, oh, please ask him about the "million dollars in free publicity" quote to his campaign manager!
says David Jay
???? How can you say things without basis and not intend to violate the rules? The more he opened his mouth, the deeper in do-do he got. Now he has to answer for it. That was total bs about saying he was campaigning and not watching the news. Did he NEVER turn on his tv the whole time he was running for DA? He had to know what he was saying to the media was on every station in the land and he wanted it that way. On top of being a terrible official of the law, he's got an ego the size of Texas.
Get your shovel out Mike and keep digging.
This is really sad and pathetic.
It's like me saying well, yeah, I threw a molatov cocktail into the window of the house, but since I walked away I had no idea it would set the house on fire.
If I had only seen the house on fire, I would never have done it.
Knowledge is the hands of a fool (perhaps changed to fong) is more dangerous than a sword.
Geez, if it's already this bad for the Fong on direct, I can't wait for the forthcoming cross.
Too easy--like shooting a carp in a small barrel.
He is just throwing himself on the mercy of the panel. The cross-examination needs to kill him, but I am worried about the ability of the bar lawyers. He knows he is going to get disbarred, however, and maybe he hopes for a successful appeal. Or maybe he just is trying to stay in office as long as possible through appeal.
"Fervent desire" was to keep lacrosse case from affecting Durham politics or from being affected by politics
Ooooh, baby!
He was the only person in North Carolina that wasn't watching the news then?
Can this be appealed? To whom?
I feel he is insulting the bar here.
It is a fact he knew that Mangum SAID NO CONDOMS WERE USED.
Since he was not asked about a hypoethical rape case, and he knew that his 'hypothetical response' was contradicted by facts of the case that he KNEW already, his response is purposefully misleading.
Mangum did not say she didn't know, if she had, then fine.
She said no condoms were used, his response is misleading and false.
"The banality of evil" keeps floating to the top of my mind watching him.
I suspect he gets a split decision on disbarment. At least one person on the panel will vote for a lesser penalty.
Nifong, in the middle of his own (first) public political campaign *didn't watch TV of himself*??!!
Who does he possible think he's kidding? He insults us all.
The evidence, according to Nifong, wasn't exculpating, it was non-inculpating.
Have to say his decision to explain himself today - rather than just toss in the towel and slink away - wasn't extelligent: it was extremely non-intelligent.
Geeze, I mean he is on record talking about this case at every freaking political appearance he made, but he didn't want to politicizes the case.
Again, he is totally insulting the intelligence of this panel.
These are not dumb jurors from Durham.
Lawyers hate to have their intelligence insulted, especially in such a crass and bad way.
If he was artfully lying here they might give him some points for making a reasonable legal argument.
Poor lying that insults their intelligence: no good.
He's trying to effectively plea for a lesser penalty.
Who is he, the Pink Panther?
He got confused and carried away?
11:23,
My understanding is that there are at least two layers of appeal. Two courts. Although I don't think he gets a trial de novo in court (in other words, I think this panel is the only trier of fact).
I'm reading this and can't believe how he's rationalizing his action. Didn't know their effects? What else was this area talking about for most of last year? You couldn't turn on a television without hearing about the Duke LAX hoax, and there he was--FRONT and CENTER--fanning the flames as hard as he could.
Did someone MAKE him demonstrate the now-famous choke hold? He didn't know the effect of that?
I hopoe someone has the guts during this to say to his face in front of God and everybody watching:
"You, Sir, are a liar."
I agree with blogger noting they are going for intent. He may be alot of bad things, but he is controlling what he says for some future benefit to himself.
Don't forget he is first a very narcissitic person with a huge ego. He still believes he did not do anything wrong.
Hopefully Williamson will soldier on and do what is needed.
When cross-examination comes, I hope one
of the questions asked of Nifong is: if the NC
State Bar had not filed ethical charges against
you, would you have brought this case to trial?
Even after it became public knowledge that
there were multiple non-lacrosse players' DNA
on the accuser AND she changed her testimony
dramatically (again), every comment you made
prior to the filing of ethical charges against you indicated that you had every
intention of bringing this case to trial. WHY?
KC,
I beg you to be very detailed on the cross, selfishly of course, I may not be able to watch as I may have to work !!!!
Thanks :=)
BDay
11:23: Don't despair. We haven't even seen the cross-exam yet. This may seem brutal, but these are HIS lawyers.
It's interesting that he concedes he's going to be found guilty of the media violations, I always thought he might skate on those and that the evidence of his hiding the DNA evidence was A LOT stronger.
Police and DAs do make comments to the media in big cases, whether they should or not, they rarely get put on trial for it, sometimes its a gray area.
I don't get this, I find the evidence of hiding DNA and lying in court totally compelling, much more compelling than the media interviews.
"He's trying to deflect total blame by admitting partial blame."
It's not a bad way to go. He needed to do this to salvage any scrap of credibility.
to 11:30
DUHHHHH... Maybe they'll get to that.
Wanna call the lawyers and remind them?
what about thee famous choke hold?????
Listen to the clicking in his mouth -- despite frequent sips of water, he's gone all dry-mouthed from the effort of lie after lie after lie.
He's a snake, blaming the media, his health, his lack of experience, the police.
He is definitely setting up for the best outcome for him that he can get. Agree with blogger who suggested a split panel vote.
In the end, this is a local problem and he is one of their own in every way. Someone may feel sympathy for him on that panel> that is his goal> lack of intent, inexperience, a family man trying to do the right thing with things out of his control.
Hard to listen to, but it could work.
I hope they hit him hard on cross.
I still hope the families have the energy to sue later.
He seems to be asking for leniency on improper comments based on intent.
1. He seems to be implying he was trying to hold off some type of riot. He notes a comment he heard claiming NCC students would be in jail already. He states his concern was to avoid anyone doing anything "rash."
2. He also at times seems to be stating he's "innocently" incompetant. One moment he's a seasoned prosecutor; the next it's "Aw shucks, I never done dealt with this here DNA stuff before." Same with the media: One moment he recognized immediately on seeing the NTO he knew there would be a major media reaction. Next moment, he's never had to deal directly with the media before and he was caught off guard. Had no idea how the media might "edit" him etc.
The judge and panel didn't really believe Meehan, so I'm sure they are very wary of everything Nifong did, particularly after Reade's testimony!!
duke2009mom
While I don't think "the banality of evil" works here, I find this entire situation extraordinary. How could Nifong have done what he did if he were in his right mind? I can not find a reasonable explanation. It's not stupidity, nor is it evil. It's different than that and it's difficult to figure. And, it's been very, very expensive in a number of ways.
After just hearing part of the direct,how can he not be disbarred?
Not getting into all the other things I hope will happen to him, there is no way he doesn't get disbarred??
That is what this is hearing is about, correct?
I see some bloggers saying he is going for some sort of lesser punishment..Say it ain't so jo
Does anyone know if Nifong is on any anti-psychotic meds? I am not convinced that he is grounded in reality...
11:19 -- Yes - Yes, the "million dolars in free advertising" comment. He would choke on that!
I believe that anyone going to Nifong's home and looking around would find Nifong has CDs of every interview he gave. He loved the media too much to not copy those interviews and later view them as evidence of his extreme brilliance!
What, we're supposed to believe that an egomaniac like Nifong didn't watch his TV broadcasts?
Bee Ess. Search his house and you'll probably find he has them on DVDs so he can watch them over and over again.
Post a Comment